Brian Eyolfson

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the organizational and individual respondents.

The organizational respondent filed a response, but the individual respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the individual respondent to file a response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent police officers brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to be removed as individual respondents from a human rights application alleging racial profiling.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed one officer because the allegations against him had previously been dismissed for delay.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the remaining two officers, finding that their individual conduct during the applicant's arrest remained a central issue in the proceeding.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 14 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate and granting a 14-day extension to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Manulife Financial and two individuals.

The Tribunal attempted to deliver the application to the respondents, but the mail was returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide accurate contact information for the respondents, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of colour, disability, and age, and later amended to include family status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based on interpersonal conflicts and speculation, and she failed to point to any evidence that could establish a link between the termination of her employment and any of the alleged Code grounds.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to defer her human rights application pending the completion of her workplace grievance.

The Tribunal found that the interim decision was not a final decision and therefore not subject to reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no basis to vary its earlier decision, as the grievance concerned a termination that occurred two years after the application was filed, and did not involve the same facts and issues.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed certain allegations of discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, age, and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The complainant, who holds an authorization to possess medical marijuana, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being banned from the respondent restaurant.

The respondents asserted the complainant was banned for repeatedly smoking marijuana in close proximity to the restaurant's entrance, despite requests to stop, raising concerns about second-hand smoke and their liquor licence.

The Tribunal found the complainant did not establish a disability-related need to smoke near the entrance and was not disadvantaged by the requirement to smoke elsewhere.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application on the basis of delay, settlement privilege, and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal misrepresented an OLRB decision and improperly applied settlement privilege.

The Tribunal found no denial of natural justice and concluded that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already decided.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The respondent police officers brought a request for an order during proceedings to strike portions of a human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents of racial profiling in 2007 and 2008, argued that the limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code should not begin to run until he turned 18, relying on common law principles and the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Tribunal held that the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply to the Code, and that a minor's status is instead considered when assessing whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay, noting he was represented by counsel during the relevant period who had raised the issue of racial profiling in criminal proceedings.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Correspondence sent to the applicant's municipal address was returned as moved or unknown.

The Tribunal subsequently sent an email requesting an up-to-date mailing address and warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned if no response was received.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the proceeding pending the completion of a union grievance.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the deferred proceeding, warning that failure to respond might result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

After correcting a mailing error, the Tribunal sent the request to the applicant's alternative contact.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicants, who are in receipt of ODSP benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because they were denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon, which is available to OW recipients.

The applicants requested to consolidate their applications and the applicant Megan Hinsley requested to amend her application.

The respondent requested summary hearings.

The Tribunal granted the requests to consolidate and amend, and denied the respondent's requests for summary hearings.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against a First Nations education authority.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction questioning its jurisdiction, noting that employment in the provision of educational services on First Nations typically falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant confirmed that the Canadian Human Rights Commission had accepted jurisdiction over her claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.